On Monday April 24 2006 10:38 am, Eric Beversluis wrote:
> Spell checquers due knot help ewe right. If you think that they work
> well, ewe will bee very disappointed. Their are two many words that the
> spell-chequer will cheque and naught find too bee miss-spelled. But sum
> won who has red the document well sea the colonel of the problem. Knot
> two merchant the ewes of rung words.
>
> EB
Very good, but I detected some "misspelled" words when I copied what
you wrote in OOo. Perhaps that is because I use English(USA) and you are
using a different Language for spelling purposes.
What you have successfully pointed out is that a spellchecker is not
designed to distinguish between homonyms. (Actually, you could have placed
the word "wood" between well and see near the bottom of your paragraph.)
I, personally, think your premise is wrong. Spellcheckers do help you
write better. What they don't do is correct all of your mistakes. You have
to take the time to proof read your work to do that. However, a
spellchecker can quickly catch some very common errors which makes your
proof reading a little simpler.
The spellchecker is only a tool. No one should expect it to perform
beyond what it was designed to do. It pays to have a good dictionary
containing the terms you will be using in your document. Then if you are
not sure whether the word is correct or not, look it up in the dictionary.
If it is correct, add the word to one of the user-defined dictionaries of
OOo. If it is incorrect, change it and edit the user-defined dictionary of
OOo which contains the incorrect entry.
Dan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
